ArticleThe British journal of occupational therapy2025
User perceptions of aspects related to the use of the activity chair: A descriptive cross-sectional study.
Article in The British journal of occupational therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Little is known about the use and aspects impacting the use of the activity chair, which is a device supporting seated activities in everyday life. The aim was to understand (a) purpose of provision, (b) frequency and magnitude of use, (c) barriers impacting use, (d) instruction provided and (e) overall satisfaction with the activity chair. Method: This is a cross-sectional study involving 141 adult activity chair users. Data were collected through telephone interviews using a study-specific questionnaire with 21 items. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise the quantitative results, and data-driven text analysis was conducted to analyse open-ended question responses. Results: Most respondents (87%) were provided the activity chair for kitchen work, 87% used the device on a daily basis, 75% used the device for additional activities beyond the provision purpose, 65% experienced barriers impacting use, instructions varied, with 28% receiving none and 16% had received activity-based training, 85% were satisfied with the activity chair. Conclusion: The activity chair appears to be regularly utilised and appreciated by respondents. However, improved device provision, particularly concerning activity-based training in relevant context and systematic follow up, may be required to reduce barriers impacting use. Findings emphasise the importance of learning from users.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.